Thierry Henry’s handball and the degradation of sport

Thierry Henry was caught in slow-mo reply handling the ball (twice) in a crucial game against Ireland last week, leading directly to France’s winning goal and eliminating Ireland from the World Cup Finals in South Africa next year. A storm of invective has poured down on Henry’s head, but virtually all the actors in this saga have diminished themselves and international sport is – once again – exposed as a degrading spectacle that has less to do with heroic endeavour and more to do with gamesmanship, hypocrisy and chauvinism.


Henry first. He cheated, no two ways about it. His first touch may have been accidental, his second most certainly was not. His actions are fractionally mitigated by the fact it happened in the heat of the moment, rather than in the premeditated fashion of, say, taking illegal performance-enhancing drugs. But cheat he did.



His dishonesty was joined by a lack of moral courage when, realising that TV cameras had caught is malfeasance in every excruciating detail, he issued a highly qualified apology in which he appeared to blame…the referee. Maybe the referee was incompetent, but Henry acted to willingly deceive him. Still it continued: when the storm of controversy really exploded, he added disingenuousness to his list of qualities: by calling for a replay after FIFA had ruled one out. Brave? Mais non, mon ami.


For some reason Irish politicians got involved and ranted about injustices towards smaller countries. You can bet that Irish politicians care not one jot for the sport of football, or the fans, but politicians are adept at riding waves of national hysteria to further their own advancement, and so it was here.


For many Irish, this has been a chance to wallow in victim status, to dredge up past injustices throughout their history and to draw a parallel with a football match. It’s pathetic – but not entirely surprising. This is international sport, after all. If war is the continuation of politics by other means, then sport (or rather international sporting competitions) are the continuation of war by other means.



Of course, Ireland’s complaints reek of hypocrisy. Maybe the replay principle could be applied consistently, because if it were, it might be to Ireland’s disadvantage. Georgia were victims of a penalty injustice on the 11th February which Ireland gladly accepted; and Montenegro would probably like a replay for the 0-0 game on the 14th of October when Irish player Paul McShane handled the ball in the area and didn’t tell the ref it was a penalty. Fair play? Ireland are no saints.



Remember when England were eliminated from the 1986 World Cup by Maradona’s “Hand of God”? England were aggrieved but didn’t ask for a replay. No formal complaint was made, they just got on with it. At the time FIFA praised England for the manner in which they accepted their defeat. The score should have been 1-1 but England just accepted it. Ireland would do well to conduct themselves with dignity instead of wallowing in self-pity and demanding a replay. I’m sure most Irish people aren’t like that, but this is what happens when sport becomes a metaphor for national honour, or national victimhood. It’s a shame that some England fans still can’t let the 1986 handball go and still dredge it up, but that’s what happens when sport is so tightly woven with nationality. Most England fans I meet now, however, acknowledge that Maradona’s skill as a footballer outweighs the injustice of that incident. It will be interesting to see whether Ireland fans are still banging the ‘injustice’ drum 25 years later.


It's not just Henry, or the French (or the Argentinians). Cheating, gamesmanship and the absence of honour and integrity now seemed to be an ingrained part of just about every sporting event, across many cultures. Even the Irish players seemed to accept Henry’s cheating. Listen to what Damian Duff had to say: “If it was down the other end and it was going out of play, I’d have chanced my arm. You can’t blame him. He’s a clever player but you expect the ref to see it, it was so blatant.” There you have it. In a way you have to admire Duff’s honesty. He would gladly cheat, he’s says, so he politely declines to condemn Henry. Amazing.


In reality is a storm in a teacup. Who cares who won, and how, and whether it was by means fair or foul? But as I argued in my piece on ‘abolish international sport’, where ‘national’ teams are involved, chauvinism and grandstanding are never far behind.


If Henry had taken the unlikely (perhaps very unlikely) action and stopped play, admitting his foul, he would have been lauded as a true sporting great and a role model, even if his team had lost. His honour would have been salvaged. But here’s the thing about cheating: the inescapable law of karma. What goes around comes around. It always does. It has to. So now Henry will be forever vilified as a cheat, his reputation lies in tatters, his sponsorship deals on the line, his very name synonymous with duplicity. It won’t stop there. His children will read about their father’s dishonour. They too will have to live with it. What an awful fate, all for one lousy goal.


It’s horribly unfair to Henry, of course – because as Damian Duff so shamefacedly explained, they all do it; they just hope they get away with it. But Henry also has to accept that the higher the stakes, and the higher your profile, the greater the scrutiny.


Sport should be about the human spirit, endeavour, training, determination and achievement. But it has become a win-at-all costs gladiatorial battle, inflamed by international contests with their national anthems and flags, and egged on by huge salaries and corporate deals. In the grand scheme of life it is not as important as the many pressing international issues of the day. It can unite, and entertain, but the pressure to be ‘winners’ means that something far more important than winning has been lost: integrity. Without it, sportsmen (and women) are nothing.


From doping in the Tour de France, to fake blood injuries in rugby, from diving footballers to ball-tamperers in cricket, sport has become demeaned. Players are so desperate to win that they will seek unfair advantage by whatever means they can. In athletics I have heard the argument that all sprinters know the other guys take drugs, so they feel if they don’t do the same then they are being cheated. I never used to understand what teachers used to say about cheating: “You’re only cheating yourself”. But now I do: if you have a gold medal round your neck, but you broke the rules to get it, then you know in your heart that you are not really a champion. You have to lie to your children when they ask you how you won it. What a burden.


Some people say that why not just abolish testing and let athletes take whatever drugs they like. It would be the death of sport because the competition would be between rival laboratories and doctors, not athletes.


In the world of mixed martial arts contests, a fighter was recently disqualified for taking steroids. Bas Rutten, a veteran fighter, said that the individual concerned wasn’t really a mixed martial artist because he didn’t have enough confidence in himself, his abilities and his training – he was so unsure of himself that he felt the need to add a bit more to his engine by taking drugs. It’s true. You could say the same about cheating footballers. They are not real sportsmen.


Magnanimous in victory, generous in defeat. It marks a higher calibre of person. Some players are only gracious when they’re winning: take Serena Williams, for example, and her foul-mouthed outburst. Some players’ skills are nullified by their violence, like Roy Keane, who is a thug and a coward. Other cowards, like Sir Alex Ferguson, look for excuses to explain away defeats. We need sportsmanship, not gamesmanship. Money and international contests have helped demean sport.


Competitive sport should be encouraged. It is, after all, a form of entertainment. But ‘international’ events should be abolished and the strictest rules imaginable should be introduced to stamp out cheating and its close cousin, gamesmanship. But it needs to go deeper than that. Children across the world should be taught that honour and integrity are the hallmarks of a great human being, which is so much more important than being a winning sportsman. And that while one should strive to win, being a good loser is a lot harder than being a good winner.

The Rules of Work - how to stop procrastinating

Procrastination. It's the bane of many people's working lives. Some people procrastinate because they don't know where to start on a task, some because they lack the confidence to do it, some because they are perfectionists and some because they just can't face it. I thought I'd share some of the things I've found helpful in overcoming procrastination.

Make an immediate start – even a ‘microstart’ - to every job you are given. Especially the rotten ones. Don't wait - do it straight away. Before you have time to over-think what you're doing or to rationalise yourself out of it.

It actually doesn't really matter what this 'start' to the work is; it could be a sketch, a memo, a few bullet points, a garbled document that you keep for yourself. You can delete it later - it doesn't matter, just do something right away.

Making a tiny start to something immediately will have a good psychological effect on you – boosting your confidence and self-esteem, informing your subconscious that you can actually do this damn piece of work, that it’s not impossible and it is do-able.

On the other hand if you don’t touch your unpleasant piece of work for ages it will become more repellent and unconquerable in your mind, creating a vicious circle of procrastination.

Try that for starters!

Abolish international sport

It's a funny thing about sport, but when teams suddenly become countries: "Germany", "France", etc - the contest suddenly becomes less about sport and more about national pride. When England beat Australia to win the Ashes the entire country basked in the glory. Even though the baskers themselves couldn't throw a ball for toffee and have contributed exactly nothing to "their" team's success.



So here's my proposal. All 'international' sporting events should be abolished. Not sporting events themselves; just that athletes should compete as individuals at the Olympics and at every other sport, and that the England football, rugby etc teams be abolished and players play for any team they want to - clubs, associations etc.



The reasoning being firstly : that international sport divides rather than unites; that it promotes nationalism, even racism, cements differences and encourages jingoism and xenophobia. It is, as Orwell said, "war minus the shooting". Hardly what the world needs. Secondly: that in a sporting context 'nationality' is actually pretty meaningless. Andy Murray was born in Scotland but trained and learnt his skills in Spain. So he actually owes more to Spain than Scotland. So shouldn't he really represent Spain, if anyone? After all we have no control over where we were born. It just depends on where your mother went into labour. I could have been born in France is mum had delivered early. So can I play for France? Mum was born in Tanzania, so I can play for them too? It's meaningless. Most people have 'foreign' blood in them.



International sport equates sporting prowess with nationhood, even ethnicity. And if American athletes win say 10 golds, how does that mean 'America' has won 10 golds? It doesn't. It just means that those individuals have won them. Nothing at all to do with insurance salesmen in Texas or computer programmers in San Francisco. They haven't done anything. This false sense of 'belonging', of somehow partaking in the success of others, living your dreams and fantasies vicariously through the success of others who just happen to share your passport is simply nonsense. Do you know an olympic gold medallist? Have you ever met one? Have you personally helped him/her to perfect the techniques that enabled them to win gold? Of course not. So you can claim no credit for their success. The feelgood factor you get from their success in competing for the team of the country you live in is illusory.



A wiser man than me, Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT, renowned linguist, author and campaigner said this about sporting loyalties during a live interview in front of an audience:



"You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laughter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense. But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on."



Professor Chomsky's slant is that obsessing about sport distracts the masses from the important things in life, like politics. But extrapolate his point further to people's association of entire countries or races with sporting contests . It's not a big stretch.



Take English football. Many people like watching football. They like to see the skill of the players and the teams. But a curious thing: they think that a team is equivalent to themselves. They think that they are a team. So they say: "We won on Saturday"; "we beat you"; "we're better than you" etc. It makes me laugh. "We"? "We"? Since when do you play for Chelsea? Are you a goalkeeper or something? It used to be the case that teams were composed of players who were all local lads from the area. Those days are long gone - now football is in the hands of huge and powerful corporate giants, media companies and billionaires. I'm looking forward to laughing my socks off when the day comes that rival teams are owned by companies that are in partnership with each other, or even the same company. Just to see the bafflement of the 'fans' who believe that 'their' team is apart from, and distinct from, all the others.


On a local level sporting loyalties are laughable. Irrational. An imagined and entirely concocted 'rivalry' that sweeps people along into believing that they have 'enemies'. Two guys could pass each other in the street perfectly peaceably. But if the next day they are wearing colours from opposing teams they suddenly become rivals. Amazing.


On an international scale it is even more absurd. If sport is truly about aesthetics, admiring the strength, speed, technique, determination and willpower of the competitors, then grouping teams of individuals by country should be abolished. Individuals should compete as individuals, teams merely as colleagues. In many sports the players in the same teams don't even have the same nationality, they only qualify through ancestry, so it's meaningless anyway. International sport encourages the most ugly kind of jingoism and nationalism, often with a healthy dose of racism thrown in for good measure.

It could be too ambitious an aim. Perhaps the desperate urge to have a sense of belonging, the divisiveness of 'them' and 'us' is too strongly ingrained in human nature to achieve this. But we could make a start by abolishing the contemptible 'league table' of medals that 'countries' win at the Olympics. I don't care that the UK did so well, beating France, Australia etc. It wasn't our country anyway, just a miniscule proportion of people who hold the nationality and outperfomed another tiny number of individuals, none of whom have any affinity whatsoever with the watching viewers.


Even the 'positive' aspects of international competition - camaraderie, national hysteria, strangers kissing each other in the street - is all based on 'beating' someone, on being 'better' than someone and on being, in some way, superior. I'm not against competition, I think it's healthy. I'm against it being based on nationhood. The world would be a much better place without it.

Question Time - Nick Griffin

Who’s afraid of Nick Griffin? Lots of people, it seems. After Thursday night’s performance on Question Time, maybe they shouldn’t be. No-one comes out well from the BNP/Question Time debacle – not Nick Griffin, not the BBC, the audience, panellists or protestors.


I missed the show but caught it on BBC iPlayer later. Griffin’s mission was simple: appear respectable, be moderate, seem reasonable. Trouble is, when you’ve spent your adult life hobnobbing with the Ku Klux Klan and saying that Auschwitz is a fairy story, your mission is pretty much impossible. Sure enough, he squirmed like a maggot on a hook when his outrageous beliefs were quoted back at him. Griffin is also a coward – he stubbornly refused to admit what everyone in the studio, and sitting at home watching on the sofa, knew: that his agenda was driven by skin colour and race; nothing to do with culture.


Should he even have been on there?


Yes, he should. Yes, of course. You get 900,000 votes and you can’t be censored. If we don’t have freedom of speech, we have nothing. Otherwise who will decide who can and cannot speak? It won’t be you, that’s for sure. The BBC were right to say that as a public sector broadcaster they couldn’t censor a politician with votes.


Freedom of speech doesn’t open the door to murder and pillage – we quite rightly have laws in the UK that forbid inciting racial hatred, or incitement to murder, or advocating violence, threats to kill etc. So people like Nick Griffin have to be very careful what they say now. It wasn’t always like this: Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech was allowed to pass in 1968, whereas today I suspect he would get his collar felt by the long arm of the law. There’s no need to be terrified of someone whose views are so comical even people who hold them are embarrassed to express them.When intolerant people come into view, it always brings out the intolerance in others. It's instructive to watch.


For a start the adolescent loonies ‘protesting’ against his appearance seemed oblivious to the plank in their own eye. They complain about ‘fascism’ but by deciding for themselves who should and should not appear on television they are have a little sideline in fascism going themselves. It seems that plenty of violence is dished out by the anti-Nazi league/Socialist Workers party who spend their lives in pursuit of a cause or a bandwagon to jump on.


Of course we have plenty of ‘fascists’ in this country. Fascist has become one of those derogatory terms that is nowadays applied to absolutely anyone you disagree with. Like foxhunting? You’re a fascist. Want to ban foxhunting? Fascist. Want to cap immigration? Ban anything? Or do anything unpopular? Then you’re a fascist. Fascism is about the worship of the state, combined with a mercantilist economic policy that has little to do with free market policies and an aggressive, nationalistic foreign policy that is opposed to the free movement of peoples and other aspects of globalisation.


By most of these standards the BNP don’t score highly on the fascist scale. To call them ‘Nazi’ is just absurd, and denigrates the victims of Hitler. They have a policy on immigration that in some ways is very left-wing: to stop it, even reverse it. They don’t believe in the free market, free movement of people


We have racist, sectarian, violent groups in the UK but you never hear the anti-fascist protestors or the Socialist Workers Party or the anti-Nazi League complaining about them. Sinn Fein, an organisation that’s murdered thousands of people, now sits in Government; Islamic extremist movements that advocate violence and preach beliefs incompatible with Western values are never picketed by the Anti Nazi League when they appear at mosques or campuses or schools. Funny, that.


Jack Straw came across as a man of straw - refusing resolutely to concede that Labour's misguided immigration policy had fuelled the rise of the BNP when even his own supporters could see that was the case. He was so righteous in his indignation he refused to acknowledge what everyone could see. His refusal to budge or even admit there was room for improvement in immigration policy rebounded on him and he suddenly seemed evasive, shifty, myopic and even arrogant.


Bonnie Greer, no doubt a woman of considerable talents and qualities, ended up looking arrogant, petulant and foolish. It would have been quite easy to deconstruct Griffin’s absurdities around the topic of genetic purity, but Greer chose to try and appear superior and again refused to acknowledge anything. Perhaps that’s how panellists are coached before appearing on screen, or maybe that’s the done thing.


One minute she harked back to the Ice Age to demonstrate there were no such thing as 'indigenous' Britons, the next patronising Griffin by alluding to his "two two" and suggesting he do more reading. She was stumped, however, when Griffin craftily suggested that no-one would deny there was such a thing as an indigenous Maori or Aboriginal.


It was obvious Griffin had a point, even though it was used to mask a sinister and dangerous eugenics theme. There is no such thing as pure-bred British – we’re all hybrids after all, out of Africa. But it’s also true that the British have been a fairly insular bunch prior to mass immigration in the 1950s, and everyone knows that’s what Griffin was getting at.


Before 1066 of course it wasn’t anything like that – Angles, Saxons, Danes, Vikings, Celts, Romans with their black and Mediterranean heritage; they all settled here. The DNA in Great Britain is an indecipherable mix, a hotch-potch. But notwithstanding the Hugeunots, Jews, Irish, scattering of black slaves brought in through the seaports and a few others, white British people had indeed developed a settled culture they identified as ‘British’ prior to the 1950s. It’s undeniable.


The killer point though, the one that everyone in this country understands, is that Britishness is now defined by nationality, character, language and values – not by skin colour or ethnicity. It’s something I’m proud of. I like that about this country. One only has to look at the furore in insular China, where there is uproar over a half-black, half-Chinese girl appearing on a talent show. Many Chinese simply can’t accept that someone with black parentage can be ‘Chinese’ (or Han Chinese). Nationality is defined by ethnicity, which we know is a fallacy as all races are mixed. But in the UK nationality and ethnicity are separate. People who combine and try to pretend they are the same them look stupid and are actually embarrassed about their own views.


I also believe that people who settle in a country, at any point in history, have an obligation to respect the laws, traditions and customs of the society they find themselves in, and attempt to integrate as best they can. Not easy if you experience racism and discrimination, but you must try. Some groups seem to have managed this better than others.


Multiculturalism has not served the UK well. It’s lead to insular sub-societies cut off from the mainstream, sometimes embittered and feeling disenfranchised and searching for an outlet for their identity, sometimes in the most extreme ways, as in the suicide bombings of 2005. Having a society where everyone feels they have a stake is more constructive. Unfortunately the BNP want to promote a cultural apartheid in this country, which would only do harm.


No-one believes that people with dark skin should be ‘sent back’, as the NF used to say. Sent back to where? The British hospital they were born in? It’s a non-starter and everyone knows it. Britain has absorbed immigrants very well, by and large. So it wasn’t necessary for Bonnie Greer to talk about Ice Age Neanderthals.


The BBC themselves also emerged with little credibility. They wanted to have their cake and eat it; one moment saying that Griffin could not be denied a platform because of the BNP's electoral success, the next trying to rig the audience and panel against him with hostile questions and a partisan audience. Why stick a black woman next to Griffin? Bonnie Greer was chosen because she was black, make no mistake about it. It was the BBC’s attempt to embarrass Griffin. But the audience could see through it.


It wasn't necessary to ban Griffin, censor him or rig the audience and panel. He was given enough rope to hang himself, and by the end he had done so by attempting to defend the indefensible. Politics based on skin colour is so absurd even racists are embarrassed to admit to their views, and the audience sniggered when he was cornered about the Holocaust.


One of the few good points Bonnie Greer made was that without freedom of speech we have nothing. I enjoyed watching Griffin talking rubbish about indigenous race, he looked foolish. Not surprisingly, his own party is far from happy with his performance. I look forward to seeing more of him, and then watch his party implode, despite the opinion polls showing imaginary 'swings' and 'surges' for him.


What of the BNP themselves? Groups founded purely to attack others always end in schisms and fratricide - they cannot contain their desire to destroy and so always turn on themselves. That's why the BNP is an offshoot of the old National Front, why Irish Republican Groups splinter and why racists always fight civil wars with each other.


I don’t think there’s any need to fear the BNP. They have nothing to offer because the UK is ethnically mixed now, and it’s irreversible. Everyone knows that. Once we have a controlled immigration policy and the economic climate improves, they will fade away. Even by the standards of fringe parties they are small. It’s seems clear to me that a lot of people who vote for them do so as a protest because they’re scared, worried or angry about immigration and ‘foreigners’. Some are racist, I will bet most aren’t – they’re just ignorant and fearful. My guess is that prolonged media coverage will (a) expose the BNP to more ridicule and (b) force the Government to have a sensible immigration policy.


People who spread fear always do so because they are fearful themselves. Fear is what drives them: fear of the unknown, fear of change, fear of ‘the other’. Nick Griffin and his supporters have lived, and will continue to live their whole lives in fear. That is their greatest punishment.

The Rules of Work

I'm starting a new section called "The Rules of Work". My ideas and advice on how to flourish in an office environment, accumulated over the last decade and a half (almost) of working in offices in the UK - in banking, insurance, the Metropolitan Police, local councils, charities and IT departments. I've been around a bit ;)

Here are some rules to get you started:


Look Busy. When you walk somewhere in the office – to another part of the building, to the photocopier, to have a chat with your friend about anything – always carry file conspicuously held in your hand or tucked under your arm. If not a file then a notepad or a bunch of papers. Take something with you on every trip you make. It makes you look professional, like you have a purpose and are a dedicated guy who is focussed on their work and not an idler who is loafing around. Of course, you are focussed on your work. I know that, and you know that. But even if you’re going for a chat about what your friend did over the weekend, always carry your file with you; you always want to look busy.

If you make a mistake, for goodness’ sake don’t try and cover it up. Ever.

If it’s your fault apologise. Don’t try and qualify your apology, deflect blame or justify yourself. If you do it will be easy to spot and your apology will be ignored; in fact people will regard you worse than they did if you hadn’t apologised at all.

· When you write an email, put together the text first; add in the name of the addressee afterwards.

· Never write anything personal about anyone in an email. Ever. No matter how much of a git they are. Anything you type on a keyboard remains in cyberspace FOREVER and can come back and haunt you. IT departments are rubbish at most things but strangely are very good at keeping things that can damn you.

· Never badmouth anyone, even in private. You think it’s safe by the water cooler, but it’s not. For a start you can (and probably will) be overheard; but even if you’re not, your co-conspirator only needs to tell one person they think they can trust and the dominoes will start falling – a chain reaction which will lead inexorably to someone who will hear that you have been badmouthing their best buddy. Oops. If you really have to, criticise their work, never them personally. That way you have something to back yourself up with.

· Try and keep your private life out of your work life. Especially relationships.

Extradite Gary McKinnon

Always be suspicious when has-been ‘celebrities’ join forces with politicians to campaign for something. Especially when the something in question has been reduced to a black-and-white, good versus-evil protest with political agendas thrown in. Enter Gary McKinnon.

GK has admitted hacking into Pentagon computers and the US authorities, not surprisingly, want to try him for it. He's been fighting extradition. Not because he didn't do it - he's admitted that he did - but because (a) he doesn't think he can handle a long stretch in the clink and (b) he says really didn't mean it - he was looking for aliens, you see.

Now I don't know the full facts of the case. And neither do you. But neither, more importantly, do Boris Johnson and all the other media whores who have jumped on the McKinnon bandwagon. None of them know the full facts. But they are quite happy to prefer not to hear them in a court of law because it means they can use this case as a political football.

Boris Johnson's argument is that McKinnon is a 'classic British nut-job' - and so should not be tried on that basis! I didn't know that being a nut-job determined the validity or otherwise of an extradition request. Don't judge people by your own standards, Boris. The Daily Mail wants another stick to beat the Government with and so has championed his case. Gary McKinnon's mother is deluded in the way that only the mother of a criminal could be - 'not my boy!' is her argument.

There is a familiar narrative of self-pity in this tale. Our culture's first priority is to look for victimisation - either find it, or perpetrate it ourselves. So this story of an alleged crime and possible trial has instead been transmogrified into a pantomime story of victimhood: one of our boys being bullied by the American military; a poor hacker faced with oblivion by a faceless prison-system. No-one actually claims he didn't do it. It's just that his supporters don't want him to be punished; or more specifically, they don't want the Americans to punish him.

If McKinnon had hacked into the American branch of Stop the War, Save the Burkha, or The Campaign Stop the American Military Whilst Spreading Love and Happiness these protestors would swivel 180 degrees and be releasing albums urging he be packed off onto the first jet to the US.

Anti-Americanism. Again. Don't these people ever get tired of it? It's so passé. You can bet your bottom dollar - or British Pound - that if the situation were reversed and an American geek had hacked into the Ministry of Defence's computers and potentially compromised or endangered 'our boys' in the military then the Daily Mail would be screaming for his extradition to Belmarsh.

And then there's a political point that people who don't really care about McKinnon have been pushing. That the extradition treaty between the UK and US, signed in haste after 9/11, is unfair and biased towards the US system, they claim. And maybe it is. But so what? Argue about the treaty, don't have a hissy fit and say "That's it, you're not having this hacker now". The terms of the treaty are clear. If you want to abrogate the treaty then do so - but do it for everyone.

The last argument is a relatively new one in this case. That Gary McKinnon 'suffers' from something called Asperger's Syndrome. Apparently it's a form of autism that, according to the National Autistic Society's website can cause difficulty with social interaction, social communication and social imagination.

Nothing about distinguishing right from wrong. Nothing about being compos mentis. Nothing about being fit or otherwise to stand trial. It's just not relevant.

McKinnon knew what he was doing. He knew that his excuse that he was looking for aliens was hogwash. He just dreamt that up when he got caught, and celebrities-without-a-cause bought his line and signed up to his defence without the slightest clue about what they were doing.

He's as guilty as sin. Think I'm jumping the gun? Fine, let a jury decide. The House of Lords and the European Court have all agreed to his extradition. None of their eminences have agreed with his mum that he faces an unfair trial, that he is unfit to stand trial, that the offence is not serious enough - in other words they have thrown out all the excuses Gary McKinnon has come out with.

So off you go to America, Gary. If you're clever enough to crash Pentagon computers then I'm sure you'll have no problems at all in a court of law. If a jury agrees that you're a harmless fantasist you'll be back home for tea and biscuits. If not, then I hope you like prison food. :)

A Little Wit

"Can I ask a stupid question?"

"Yes - better than anyone I've ever met".

(Golden Girls, TV Show).
Love this one. I gotta remember it!